coopheal
12-02 11:13 AM
Just an idea without any real effort behind it is dreaming. That will not take us anywhere.
Therefore, everyone who have tossed around ideas at IV here is your chance to put some real effort to back your seriousness.
Contribute today and every month so some ideas get chance to be implemented.
Therefore, everyone who have tossed around ideas at IV here is your chance to put some real effort to back your seriousness.
Contribute today and every month so some ideas get chance to be implemented.
wallpaper wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve:
srt57
02-14 02:08 PM
My PERM LC got approved recently(two weeks back). In my case its MS+0 years. My attorney says this will qualify for EB2. MY job title is Computer Software Engineer.
Which center did you file PERM with and how long did it take to process? Any audits or business necessity documentation required?
Which center did you file PERM with and how long did it take to process? Any audits or business necessity documentation required?
karthic
12-19 08:26 AM
Hi a_yaja,
Thanks for you reply. Sorry i didn't post the entire paragraph from the memo. I have attached the USCIS Memo with this post. You can see the following paragraph on the page 17 of the Memo
My Inference from Memo:
When a cap-exempt employee files for concurrent application with cap subjected employer then the employee will be counted against the cap only if he stops the employment with cap-exempt employee. If the UCSIS finds that employee have not ceased from cap-exempt employer then UCSIS won't consider the petition against cap. In other words the concurrent petition will be approved but still the employee won't be counted toward cap.
Please let me know if i am wrong. Thanks
Below is the paragraph from the attached Memo
Requests for Changes in Employment or Concurrent Employment Requests
for Certain Cap-Exempt Aliens.
Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer described in
paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a nonimmigrant alien described in
section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title, who has not previously been counted
toward the numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A), be counted
toward those limitations the first time the alien is employed by an employer
other than one described in paragraph (5). (Emphasis added.)
Documentary evidence, such as a current letter of employment or a recent pay
stub, should be provided in support of such a concurrent employment petition at
the time that it is filed with USCIS in order to confirm that the H-1B alien
beneficiary is still employed in a cap-exempt position.
At the time of filing of a concurrent employment H-1B petition that is subject to
the numerical limitation of 214(g)(1)(a):
� If the H-1B alien beneficiary has not �ceased� to be employed in a cap-
exempt position pursuant to INA �� 214(g)(5)(A) and (B), then he or she will
not be counted towards the cap.
If the H-1B alien beneficiary has �ceased� to be employed in a cap-exempt
position, then the alien will be subject to the H-1B numerical limitation, and
the concurrent employment petition may not be approved unless a cap
number is available to the alien beneficiary.
If USCIS determines that an H-1B alien beneficiary has ceased to be
employed in a cap-exempt position after a new cap-subject H-1B petition has
been approved on his or her behalf, USCIS will deny any subsequent cap-
subject H-1B petition filed on behalf of the H-1B alien beneficiary if no cap
numbers are available.
Thanks for you reply. Sorry i didn't post the entire paragraph from the memo. I have attached the USCIS Memo with this post. You can see the following paragraph on the page 17 of the Memo
My Inference from Memo:
When a cap-exempt employee files for concurrent application with cap subjected employer then the employee will be counted against the cap only if he stops the employment with cap-exempt employee. If the UCSIS finds that employee have not ceased from cap-exempt employer then UCSIS won't consider the petition against cap. In other words the concurrent petition will be approved but still the employee won't be counted toward cap.
Please let me know if i am wrong. Thanks
Below is the paragraph from the attached Memo
Requests for Changes in Employment or Concurrent Employment Requests
for Certain Cap-Exempt Aliens.
Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer described in
paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a nonimmigrant alien described in
section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title, who has not previously been counted
toward the numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A), be counted
toward those limitations the first time the alien is employed by an employer
other than one described in paragraph (5). (Emphasis added.)
Documentary evidence, such as a current letter of employment or a recent pay
stub, should be provided in support of such a concurrent employment petition at
the time that it is filed with USCIS in order to confirm that the H-1B alien
beneficiary is still employed in a cap-exempt position.
At the time of filing of a concurrent employment H-1B petition that is subject to
the numerical limitation of 214(g)(1)(a):
� If the H-1B alien beneficiary has not �ceased� to be employed in a cap-
exempt position pursuant to INA �� 214(g)(5)(A) and (B), then he or she will
not be counted towards the cap.
If the H-1B alien beneficiary has �ceased� to be employed in a cap-exempt
position, then the alien will be subject to the H-1B numerical limitation, and
the concurrent employment petition may not be approved unless a cap
number is available to the alien beneficiary.
If USCIS determines that an H-1B alien beneficiary has ceased to be
employed in a cap-exempt position after a new cap-subject H-1B petition has
been approved on his or her behalf, USCIS will deny any subsequent cap-
subject H-1B petition filed on behalf of the H-1B alien beneficiary if no cap
numbers are available.
2011 wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve: twoodcc
baleraosreedhar
11-09 05:20 PM
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for ur responses
I got the courtesy copy ,i will contact my wifes employer again to send me the copy of i797 the attorney received.
Thanks a lot for ur responses
I got the courtesy copy ,i will contact my wifes employer again to send me the copy of i797 the attorney received.
more...
Cataphract
05-25 09:25 AM
Sorry, I read the one in Washington post and I DONT think it is against us.
Did you think it was for us then?
Did you think it was for us then?
karthic
12-19 08:26 AM
Hi a_yaja,
Thanks for you reply. Sorry i didn't post the entire paragraph from the memo. I have attached the USCIS Memo with this post. You can see the following paragraph on the page 17 of the Memo
My Inference from Memo:
When a cap-exempt employee files for concurrent application with cap subjected employer then the employee will be counted against the cap only if he stops the employment with cap-exempt employee. If the UCSIS finds that employee have not ceased from cap-exempt employer then UCSIS won't consider the petition against cap. In other words the concurrent petition will be approved but still the employee won't be counted toward cap.
Please let me know if i am wrong. Thanks
Below is the paragraph from the attached Memo
Requests for Changes in Employment or Concurrent Employment Requests
for Certain Cap-Exempt Aliens.
Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer described in
paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a nonimmigrant alien described in
section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title, who has not previously been counted
toward the numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A), be counted
toward those limitations the first time the alien is employed by an employer
other than one described in paragraph (5). (Emphasis added.)
Documentary evidence, such as a current letter of employment or a recent pay
stub, should be provided in support of such a concurrent employment petition at
the time that it is filed with USCIS in order to confirm that the H-1B alien
beneficiary is still employed in a cap-exempt position.
At the time of filing of a concurrent employment H-1B petition that is subject to
the numerical limitation of 214(g)(1)(a):
� If the H-1B alien beneficiary has not �ceased� to be employed in a cap-
exempt position pursuant to INA �� 214(g)(5)(A) and (B), then he or she will
not be counted towards the cap.
If the H-1B alien beneficiary has �ceased� to be employed in a cap-exempt
position, then the alien will be subject to the H-1B numerical limitation, and
the concurrent employment petition may not be approved unless a cap
number is available to the alien beneficiary.
If USCIS determines that an H-1B alien beneficiary has ceased to be
employed in a cap-exempt position after a new cap-subject H-1B petition has
been approved on his or her behalf, USCIS will deny any subsequent cap-
subject H-1B petition filed on behalf of the H-1B alien beneficiary if no cap
numbers are available.
Thanks for you reply. Sorry i didn't post the entire paragraph from the memo. I have attached the USCIS Memo with this post. You can see the following paragraph on the page 17 of the Memo
My Inference from Memo:
When a cap-exempt employee files for concurrent application with cap subjected employer then the employee will be counted against the cap only if he stops the employment with cap-exempt employee. If the UCSIS finds that employee have not ceased from cap-exempt employer then UCSIS won't consider the petition against cap. In other words the concurrent petition will be approved but still the employee won't be counted toward cap.
Please let me know if i am wrong. Thanks
Below is the paragraph from the attached Memo
Requests for Changes in Employment or Concurrent Employment Requests
for Certain Cap-Exempt Aliens.
Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer described in
paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a nonimmigrant alien described in
section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of this title, who has not previously been counted
toward the numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A), be counted
toward those limitations the first time the alien is employed by an employer
other than one described in paragraph (5). (Emphasis added.)
Documentary evidence, such as a current letter of employment or a recent pay
stub, should be provided in support of such a concurrent employment petition at
the time that it is filed with USCIS in order to confirm that the H-1B alien
beneficiary is still employed in a cap-exempt position.
At the time of filing of a concurrent employment H-1B petition that is subject to
the numerical limitation of 214(g)(1)(a):
� If the H-1B alien beneficiary has not �ceased� to be employed in a cap-
exempt position pursuant to INA �� 214(g)(5)(A) and (B), then he or she will
not be counted towards the cap.
If the H-1B alien beneficiary has �ceased� to be employed in a cap-exempt
position, then the alien will be subject to the H-1B numerical limitation, and
the concurrent employment petition may not be approved unless a cap
number is available to the alien beneficiary.
If USCIS determines that an H-1B alien beneficiary has ceased to be
employed in a cap-exempt position after a new cap-subject H-1B petition has
been approved on his or her behalf, USCIS will deny any subsequent cap-
subject H-1B petition filed on behalf of the H-1B alien beneficiary if no cap
numbers are available.
more...
sam_hoosier
02-12 01:42 PM
Currently its taking the same amount of time at both Nebraska & Texas service centers.
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
2010 wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve: clintob
dpp
10-12 12:19 PM
Live in Carmel. Have been locked in this process for almost nine years.
Is there an active state group?
If so please send me a PM.
I am from Fishers. Let me know if state chapter starts.
Is there an active state group?
If so please send me a PM.
I am from Fishers. Let me know if state chapter starts.
more...
anilsal
10-12 11:59 AM
If you do not have a state chapter for IN, please start one. All the mid western chapters do collaborate.
hair wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve: dcoulson
MannyD
09-11 03:34 PM
Thanks Dixie...Also, as per other forum members showing PD Year will give clear picture of voting..!!
The poll tool doesn't allow more than 10 options at a time. Now that I know the distribution of EB category, I will post another poll to get the years. I will create the new poll after checking out October visa bulletin.
We've all got to keep busy creating a poll or answering one for a while... don't we? ;)
The poll tool doesn't allow more than 10 options at a time. Now that I know the distribution of EB category, I will post another poll to get the years. I will create the new poll after checking out October visa bulletin.
We've all got to keep busy creating a poll or answering one for a while... don't we? ;)
more...
Since1997
07-18 05:01 PM
Last year the top 5 countries in EB got all these visas:
Total EB ****** 159,081
Philippines ***** 23,733
India ********* 17,169
Korea ******** 10,886
China ******** 9,484
Mexico ****** 8,864
The actual limit is 7% of the total EB plus FB which is:
(140,000 + 226,000) * .07 = 25,620
What is FB of 226,000 ?
Total EB ****** 159,081
Philippines ***** 23,733
India ********* 17,169
Korea ******** 10,886
China ******** 9,484
Mexico ****** 8,864
The actual limit is 7% of the total EB plus FB which is:
(140,000 + 226,000) * .07 = 25,620
What is FB of 226,000 ?
hot wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Katrina - Large Wallpaper
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
more...
house wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve:
krustycat
10-31 03:03 PM
Still the same, they are telling me the same story.
Wait, wait and wait. That's all.
Wait, wait and wait. That's all.
tattoo wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve:
miamivice4u
04-10 07:40 AM
But he can not loose our hopes, remember this, for the american people legal inmmigration is Green Card holders, if you are a temporary worker is like they are telling you hurry up pack your things and get back to your place, and the congress will try to work legal and illegal immigration at the same time, probably they will increase visas, but anyways the point is who is making noise in the streets? illegals and their supporters. In my case i contact my senator and my congressman every month asking to please help with comprehensive immigration reform, to help us to create legislation on name check so we do not have to wait years, and well all of them are republicans but all of them are immigrants so they know our pain.
more...
pictures wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve:
.jpg "wallpaper tom and jerry_22. car wallpaper 3d. car wallpaper 3d. calculus")
Munshi75
06-06 07:30 PM
Indian consumers have to bail out Tata soon as the bogus credit rating agencies consider to downgrade its ratings troubled after Tata placed its hands on those two white elephants. Or we can balme it on Ford and Mulay.
dresses wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve:
GCSOON-Ihope
10-30 03:55 PM
Same aberration here!
My last LUD was 10/03 and was saying something like: "in response to your inquiry we mailed you bla bla bla..."
Today 10/30 I got a new LUD but the message has reversed to what it was before: "In October 18 2005, the results of your fingerprint review for your I485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status were received, and processing has resumed on your case. We will mail you a notice if further action is needed, or when a decision is made." and I just got confirmation ...with 5 e-mails!!!:confused: :confused: :confused:
Anyone has any idea of what this means or is it just another "glitch" of their crazy software?
My last LUD was 10/03 and was saying something like: "in response to your inquiry we mailed you bla bla bla..."
Today 10/30 I got a new LUD but the message has reversed to what it was before: "In October 18 2005, the results of your fingerprint review for your I485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status were received, and processing has resumed on your case. We will mail you a notice if further action is needed, or when a decision is made." and I just got confirmation ...with 5 e-mails!!!:confused: :confused: :confused:
Anyone has any idea of what this means or is it just another "glitch" of their crazy software?
more...
makeup wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve:
bslraju
05-27 11:31 AM
May I make a sincere suggestion. Please, go back to school, take a course in English grammar, writing mechanisms and reading comprehension. People can better respond to you, when they understand whatever is it you are asking. You may also be able to file as a qualified EB2 applicant. No pun intended.
Thank you for your advise and hostility. I understand your frustration.
I was in hurry when I was posting it. How ever I have deleted it and I will follow what you said.
My sincere advise to you is better you learn how to answer to a question and
focus on things along with correcting others.
It would have been nice if you post some useful reply which would help some one.
Thank you for your advise and hostility. I understand your frustration.
I was in hurry when I was posting it. How ever I have deleted it and I will follow what you said.
My sincere advise to you is better you learn how to answer to a question and
focus on things along with correcting others.
It would have been nice if you post some useful reply which would help some one.
girlfriend wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve: Zermelo
fatjoe
10-23 08:38 AM
I filed 485 on July 18 in NSC. I called USCIS on Oct 16 (exactly the 90th day), early in the morning. 1-800-375-5283(1,2,2,6,2,2,1). The lady who picked up said they have introduced a new system to raise a 'Service Request' for those who are waiting for more than 90 days for check clearance. She siad that mine was the first case she was entering into the system. She keyed in my details and gave me a Service Request # and said that an agent will be assigned to my case within two days to look for my application. On Oct 18th, I found that my checks were cleared. But the rec # are not showing on online yet. So, pls call USCIS and raise a service req if you don't see any activity yet, it worked for me, though the rec # s not updated online yet.
I found that my appln was moved from NSC to TSC, as my rec # starts with SRC-08.
I found that my appln was moved from NSC to TSC, as my rec # starts with SRC-08.
hairstyles wallpaper tom and jerry_22. Enlace Fileserve: Enlace Fileserve: primalman
gcfriend65
12-06 10:44 AM
Can you imagine this. USCIS had been given strict guidelines from DHS to complete every case in 6 monts depending on the form type.
How about filing our taxes on April 16, but not on April 15?
How about filing our taxes on April 16, but not on April 15?
rajeev_74
12-02 12:52 AM
Are you EB3?
WaitingYaar
06-27 01:03 PM
I-140 approval with 6/06 as PD for EB2. But the notice says that the information submitted with the petition shows that the individual may not be be eligible to file for AOS at this time. Additional information about eligibility may be obtained from local INS office?? Is this how the approval should state
No comments:
Post a Comment